Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

What quotes were on this page prior to its deletion? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The article contained several unsourced verses, some unsourced paraphrases or abstracts, and a large amount of user commentary and interpretation. It had been tagged as unsourced for over two years when it was {{prod}} and deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would like to see the quotes myself, so I can perhaps find sources for them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections to my own IP and user activity, or anyone else's being actively monitored as heavily as anyone feels the need to, as I know that I am NOT engaging in any unethical activity. I actually do recognize the dubiousness of some of the support and oppose votes for me of those with few edits, and believe that at least some of these might well be the activity of the current troll-vandal intent on causing confusion, suspicions, fear and paranoia, as others of low ethical integrity have also done for many years. The assertion that "Allowing possible socking during an ongoing Adminship request could set a dangerous precedent that could pervert the Request for Adminship process" is quite a laughable example of this, as I do not know anyone who is actually sane who has ever proposed "ALLOWING" such things, though I believe I do know of some people who have regularly engaged in many forms of malicious deceitfulness, SUCH as that, and certainly do not wish to permit such practices to continue without whatever appropriate responses can be devised.Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the activity of the named accounts that gives me any reason to suspect Kalki is behind them. If one wishes to draw attention in the ongoing RfA discussion to the history of alternate accounts then it is sufficient to refer to that history, as has been done. If one wishes to allege or insinuate that Kalki is now violating a consent decree to foreswear multiple accounts then it is necessary to produce some specific and substantive basis for suspicion. As billinghurst opined, "There is no advantage and no demonstrated urgency for doing checks now, and it could be seen to pervert the discussion if they are not socks." ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ningauble:Why did both accounts somehow navigate their way to a Request for Adminship discussion for Kalki, within their first ten (10) total edits? -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have noted my support of the Checkuser request, not because I believe these accounts to be in any way associated with Kalki, but because I believe them to be suspicious in their own right, given the recent patterns of vandalism that have been seen on this site. It is entirely possible that these accounts are engaged in nefarious deeds, and have voted in Kalki's adminship bid specifically to bring it under a cloud of suspicion. However, I would oppose a Checkuser investigation directed at Kalki himself at this time, absent evidence of any current misfeasance on his part. BD2412T 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

YDone, and Confirmed as socks of someone else who has already voted, per Checkuser by Billinghurst at diff. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is unsatisfactory. Those votes were struck by Billinghurst and have now been deleted by Cirt, and Cirt blocked the two users as socks, but of whom? I have added my voice on meta to Cirt's, asking of whom they were socks. I don't like this at all, I'm afraid of the answer. But we need to know. There is a short list of people who have voted. Do we need a checkuser request for all of them?

Myself, Abd, and BD2412 have all asked for more information from Billinghurst or any other Checkusers that could answer at Meta [4] as to who else is involved with these two now Confirmed sock accounts. It seems the local en.wikiquote community is unanimous in asking for more technical information about these socks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have said at m:SRCU, I would prefer that the person who has created and voted with the socks to self-disclose. The data is unequivocal, in my experience, and my advice to the person is to 'fess up. To note that technical information about checkuser is not disclosed, just the conclusion and the account names. sDrewth 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented in reply to Billinghurst at m:SRCU that this is quite curious, and not how it's normally done at Wikiquote or Wikipedia. We as a local community ask for all the connected sock accounts to be named, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I ask that Cirt abstain from further involvement with this. He is highly involved, long-term, and his participation is obviously inflammatory.

Cirt raised the issue in the RfA itself, creating another train wreck. This did not belong there. The socking, we assume, is not by Kalki. I have moved the discussion to the talk page (and Cirt consented). It would have been better here, because this is really a matter for administrative attention. It is not about Kalki's fitness for adminship, nor is it discussion of that. Since the discussion is there, so as not to fork it, I will add comment there, covering what has been done, such as Cirt pinging a set of editors with a request for response. A report may be brought back here for admin attention. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Abd moving the discussion to the RFA talk page. But Abd failed to also point out, he agrees with me notifying the users' talk pages and here on this admin noticeboard. So Abd agrees with two-thirds of my actions here. If not for my actions, we would not even know there are at least three (3) Confirmed socks at the Request for Adminship itself. I have been acting in conjunction and collaboration with other users. At every step of this process, I've kept everyone informed and posting for additional comments on-wiki because I do indeed want additional participation from the community in this process. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt is correct. He does not need to defend himself. However, his involvement on the RfA page has been disruptive, and because Cirt is a highly experienced administrator, I assume that his judgment may have been clouded by his involvement. It happens to the best of us. I have collected and set up reporting on this at Wikiquote_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Process. --Abd (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging I was correct here. I've gone ahead and offered Kalki an Olive Branch as a peace offering DIFF. I've pledged to stop responding to Kalki at the RFA. Another user, SchroCat, has said he feels Abd is too involved, himself, and advocating fervently on behalf of Kalki. So perhaps, with multiple users of varying viewpoints collaborating together, we'll arrive at a semblance of NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A worthwhile goal, but imagine if all the effort that went into spilling all these words into these various discussions had gone into adding and improving quotes for our pages. BD2412T 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've contributed a fair amount of quality improvement to this project. And also helped respected editors FloNight, Thatcher, and Aphaia investigate cross-wiki site policy violations. One can do both things and contribute to the project. And in this case, there was/is socking going on that was confirmed by Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion, Cirt: agree more, defend less. BD2412 did not criticize your contributions. Yes, sometimes we must address user behavioral issues, so that the site is a safe place to work. And then we move on. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins, I request that you please take action here and block Kalki for the above three (3) violations of personal attacks and "No Legal Threats", by using the word "slander" three (3) times in reference to me.

My preliminary assessment of this situation is that Cirt has very effectively been trolling Kalki for outraged response. He's been on the attack against Kalki for many years. Please look at Cirt's behavior in the RfA, I have never seen such appalling, tendentious participation in an RfA. Bringing in quotations from process from more than four years ago (2010) and more than five years (2009)?

As far as I've seen, with only a day on this, there has indeed been a "cross-wiki slander campaign," -- though I would not use that word, but it's not far from accurate -- and if anyone needs diffs, I'll supply them, but only in a forum where it can make a difference, and only if asked by others than Cirt. It's a lot of work.

Cirt does not have clean hands here. (I'm not thrilled by Kalki's comments, either, but Cirt is the one who brought this here.)

"Legal threat" is preposterous. Using the word "slander" does not constitute a legal threat.

As a first step, interaction ban may be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Cirt: The Sockfarm investigation cross-wiki was indeed carried out by multiple different admins and Checkusers

I was the local admin that coordinated the cross-wiki sock investigation with FloNight and Thatcher, along with Aphaia.

But accusing me of "slander" for working cross-wiki with other admins and Checkusers is not appropriate behavior for an editor on Wikiquote, or an admin candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That agreement would be useful. Do you agree? I'd prefer that the cudgels be dropped (on both sides). If this remains open, it's a can of worms, and will require looking into a lot of smelly stuff.

I don't know about Kalki, but I was not referring to the original "cross-wiki investigation." I have not researched that yet. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked by Abd to more or less simply "shut up" for a while, and perhaps he believes it best if I let him handle my defense or assessment here. In some ways I acknowledge some of his advice prudent and I appreciate what appears to be his concern for greater justice than some might care to concern themselves with, but I believe I can and should be able to speak for myself.

I truly do NOT wish to dredge up all that can be dredged up of Cirt's actions against me, but he did DEMAND some justifications of my accusations of cross-wiki "slander" in reference to much of his general cross-wiki harassment of me, and I believe a sufficient response will take time and effort, and tracing of many events of years ago, and I believe most people realize this.

In just presenting some of what has occurred within the past few hours, I hope that what I sincerely believe to be the duplicity of Cirt's actions, here and elsewhere, will be apparent to all concerned with truth, justice and genuine fairness.

TWELVE minutes after which he made another edit to that page, at 21:38 UTC, and then at 21:47 UTC made this request to a block of me here, which I consider an effort to be able to attack my reputation while I cannot effectively talk back and respond to his deceitful assertions with more generally illuminating assertions of truth. I believe that some of you are aware he has employed such foul tactics with me before.

I had been working on responding to his DEMANDS and insinuations in what I believe to be an appropriate manner, when I noticed the actions taken here. Before I was anywhere close to finishing, I cut my efforts short, suddenly aware of MUCH going on, I made what was (for me) a relatively brief response, at my RfA page.

I know that if Cirt is demanding me to justify assertions I believe most can probably accept as properly characteristic of his actions, I probably will need more time to reply as effectively as I can, because many of the details of things require me to trace back rather complex cross-wiki actions and their various effects or more usually FAILURES to have effect, to provide some of the strong evidence available by which to justify my assertions of his harassment and slanders. I believe the evidence will reveal he has made FAR more accusations than actually were successful, but some of them were.

And as Abd point out somewhere, I am certainly NOT threatening legal action in any way by simply using the word "slander", as Cirt seems to wish to IMPLY, and I believe he is continually framing things in rather deceitful ways, and insisting on me to respond to many things in such ways as might gratify him, but would not easily present much of the pertinent truth of matters.

Though I have obvious contempt for his apparent attitudes and actions, I actually have no malice towards him, and hope that he eventually can lead a far more satisfying life than could be found in trying to find things with which to impune or further denigrate the lives and reputations of others, in such ways as he often seems obsessed with doing towards me. We have occasionally interacted with more politeness than has been our norm, and I even have assisted him in some disputes, but I don’t believe either of us is inclined to pretend to have much fondness or affection for the other.

I do have MANY things to attend to besides those here, so I might actually respond to things here for a while, and for my own peace of mind might avoid checking in for a while, but if further DEMANDS are made for EVIDENCE of slander or harassment of me in the past, I should be able to have some things done to present here within a few days, in support of some of my assertions. I can agree that would NOT be pretty and is probably a waste of my time and others, SO if it is NOT demanded, I will probably let it rest, and not bother investigating and retracing things much further than I already have.

I actually am so weary of the stress of this and other things, I might have to sleep soon, when I finish a few of them. In any event … I hope we can all relax more soon... Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Abd and Kalki: In reply to Abd and to Kalki, yes, IFF Kalki can agree to stop using the word "slander", and to apologize for having used it three (3) times in reference to me, then I will also concurrently agree to stop responding to Kalki at his Request for Adminship. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can agree to stop using the word "slander", to a VERY limited degree, but I certainly cannot honestly retract either it or "harassment" as something I honestly feel is not appropriate, in regard to some of the things you have done in regard to me. As I stated elsewhere, we have on some occasions been able to behave politely toward each other, and I have even helped you on some disputes. I hope that can actually increase, and we both can come to better understandings of each others attitudes and perhaps some of our motives. I will temper back my rhetoric a bit, and try to AVOID using the word "slander", so much as I believe I rightfully could, which should be ENTIRELY for a while, but you have been very busy recently, and I believe I should be able to respond honestly about my opinions, if justifications are demanded of them. I hope many of our disputes can be ended with relative calm acceptance of disagreements soon.Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Thank you, Kalki, for your words, but I fear, unfortunately, that's not enough. w:Slander on Wikipedia redirects to w:Defamation. It is quite a serious claim you've made with zero evidence to say I've made a false statement. And then to repeat yourself over and over and over again. IFF you're willing to stop using this word, and agree it was inappropriate to do so, especially during your process as a candidate at a Request for Adminship, then I can agree to stop responding to you there at the RFA page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is somewhat facetious to declare that you have not been defaming me, and quite presumptive to declare that there is "zero evidence" of you having made a false statement in regard to me, when your very statements in this start of this section state or imply I "refused" to reply to your requests for evidence of some of the injustices of your past campaigns against me, when I had hardly been given time for such a MASSIVE undertaking, and then blatantly state that I made a blatent "legal threat" by even using the word "slander" in regard to your statements, which is quite patently false. There are many other examples to be found in many of your recent comments beyond this page I am sure, let along your long history of commentaries in regard to me, on various wikis. If you wish me to acknowledge you probably believe yourself justified in much of your apparent animosity to me, I can acknowledge that this is in some ways likely, though I do not pretend to know all the reasons for that, and decline to venture any speculations at this time. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki, you should know that it's inappropriate to make accusations of slander and defamation, without already having any evidence to back up your claims. And if not prepared to do so, then you should refrain from making such claims. Especially during a Request for Admin discussion where you are the candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, you should know that it's inappropriate to make accusations of slander and defamation, without already having any evidence to back up your claims. And if not prepared to do so, then you should refrain from making such claims. You do NOT use the WORDS "slander" or "defamation" but that is PRECISELY what you are DOING in your previous sentences. You are IMPLICITLY accusing me of having NO basis for MY statements, and thus SLANDERING and DEFAMING you, even AFTER I have cited your own statements on THIS page as CLEAR evidence. There is CLEARLY abundant evidence in your behavior over the years and if you INSIST I gather it up, I will gather MUCH of it — but it might take a few days to present enough you can pretend isn't "trivial" as you often seem inclined to make MANY aspects of truth SEEM. Let us both put it to rest for now. IF you demand evidence, I will spend time collecting it — and I am sure it will take at least a few days to gather up sufficient evidence to present in a manner you would not be able to simply ignore or deny or insist others should. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki, nowhere have I used such words in relation to you. I've merely pointed out your use of such words to make these claims without evidence is inappropriate and you should stop it. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be entirely missing or attempting to evade my point: to slander or defame one does not necessarily USE the words slander or defame (it actually would be rather problematic if one always did), one simply needs to imply some form of WRONGDOING, which is NOT warranted by the available evidence, which I believe most can recognize is what you have done when you have implied I had NO evidence you had defamed me, OR that you quite regularly for years have implied that I have been an active "sockpuppeter" in the sense MOST people use the word, in using them for DELIBERATE WRONGDOING, and even have been CURRENTLY using them thus, in repudiation of my solemn COMMITMENT some years ago, not to use my alternate accounts at all, and you have been DOING this without ANY credible evidence of such claims. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, I said nothing of the sort. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I state there: I strongly believe this entire commentary by Cirt (talk · contributions) in this section should be removed as clear attempt at further POISONING the processes than he already has. My commentary can also be removed, and perhaps restored in an appendix in the archival records of the processes which have occurred.

I believe his efforts to intimidate or impugn the integrity of ANYONE who had voted for me by name prior to certain anon IP votes of being an unethical sock-puppet master, DIRECTLY on their user pages should also be censured as conduct unbecoming a human being, let alone an admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My question was recommended by Billinghurst, and that's why I've asked it. I've got no objections to it being moved to the RFA talk page by Abd. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am proposing an interaction ban. Cirt did handle this poorly, especially by incorrectly stating that the sock master had already supported. That then provoked Kali's response, and Kalki does not necessarily respond temperately. Cirt had already agreed that he would be willing to not comment in the RfA. But then he commented, triggering more disruption. This must stop. I suggest a temporary "injunction," where direct interaction between Cirt and Kalki is prohibited for a time. Kalki must have the right to respond to comments in his RfA, foolishly or otherwise. Cirt has already voted and made his position clear, too many times. I do not know if this disruption is widespread, I presume an administrator who acts by confirming a ban on the user talk pages will know. The admin can make the ban narrow or broad. If either user has legitimate business with the other, they may ask a third party to intervene (who will be responsible if it's disruptive). This battle has gone on for many years. It's time it stop, it's damaging the wiki.

I would have the ban cover the attached RfA talk page as well. Other users can handle the sock issue, it's under way and will be resolved, I'm confident. It is not needed to assess the RfA result, for even a sock master gets one vote, whether or not the wiki decides to sanction socking, a whole other issue. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If not for my actions, we would not know of the Confirmed socking at the Request for Adminship. I've already suggested I would be willing to stop responding to Kalki at the RFA itself. Other than this particular RFA, Kalki and I have gotten along just fine for a while now. There is no ongoing "battle". I can certainly be content to stop commenting in response to Kalki at the RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'll agree to make it a statement: Regardless of further actions and/or comments by Kalki, I will agree to stop commenting in response to Kalki at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). Hopefully this will allow things to cool down a bit. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary justice, interesting approach. You don't think that this is a community issue that the community could have discussed prior to a block? This judgement of yours aligns with the Wikiquote:Blocking policy how? My comment would be that this response is lacking in maturity. sDrewth 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Billinghurst. There was no claim of abuse of tools, no emergency, the truth was going to come out, and we wanted the sock master to acknowledge it, so that then we could move on, including deciding whether or not to allow him to continue as a user and sysop. First offense, not worthy of an indef block. Right now, I'm going to go to Miszatomic's talk page and suggest he not unblock himself. If he was immature enough to sock, he might also unblock. I'll be back. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Billinghurst, the sockmaster's sock accounts had at least three (3) sock accounts globally-locked by Stewards for "Long-term abuse". According to the sockmaster admin, himself, he blocked one of his own sock accounts with the explanation of: "intimidating behavior / harassment". -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The description "Long-term abuse" was a mistake by the stewards: they (understandably) mistook him for the actual long-term vandal, whom they routinely block. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Process was underway here to encourage the sock master to come forth. That was not complete. And then the community would have considered response. Cirt's action in blocking is outside what I would expect. Desysop should be a community decision, or at least be requested by a 'crat in an emergency. This is not something for a single sysop to take on. Cirt has presented evidence here; Cirt did not mention that he was the requestor on enwiki. The enwiki request cited Wikiquote activity, no enwiki disruption that I've seen. It used to be that such a request would be rejected for lack of evidence of enwiki disruption. There was a pending steward investigation. Cirt did not tell us that he'd also made a report on enwiki. Cirt is highly involved and should not have blocked, but reporting what he found here was appropriate. I'm looking at that enwiki checkuser request. What I notice immediately is users listed with no enwiki edits, and most importantly, Gene96. SUL and autologin now makes it possible for checkusers at enwiki to effectively check users only active on other wikis. I notice that Miszatomic is not blocked on enwiki. Only here on Wikiquote. --Abd (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For someone who has been following this vandal for a while now, I agree with DanielTom. The block of DanielTom6 was done by a Global sysop (who has no CU access on this wiki) and thus was mistook for the real vandal. I also agree with Abd and DanielTom, Cirt had no rights to either block Miszatonic or request removal of his sysop rights on meta and worse, to have him globally locked. This is still a community and the community should decide what action needs to be taken cause personally, I don't see any "vandalism" or "intimidation" by Misza's socks....he may deserve to get desysopped but he surely does not deserve to get blocked and/or locked...I suggest this be voted on (ec:I see you have done that)..--Stemoc (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm appalled, that's so misleading. The admin he threatened with death was himself. Now, it would be useful to undelete User talk:Jody Fosteur. He created the disruptive conversation that he blocked for, apparently, and then deleted it (after others were involved, apparently). That talk page should not have been deleted, and that was, all by itself, a suspicious action (though possibly justifiable, but not deletion by him). Nobody watches. So fix it, please. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Negative. The admin he threatened with death was not himself. It was UDScott. DIFF -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt is correct that, on the face of it, the sock also threatened UDScott. At the time I responded above, I had only the link Cirt had provided, [5]. In that evidence, Cirt quoted material from deleted pages, and did not show "UDScott" but did show "Miszatomic." It is now visible and so it can be seen. I thank Cirt for undeleting. However, the only discussion that should happen here is unblock, and that may be premature, because he has not put up an unblock template. I've asked Cirt to unblock, and he has refused, citing the "threats" and the like. Blocks are not intended to be punitive, but preventative. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If "Jody Fosteur" really is Miszatomic's sock, then it did behave badly, which was his excuse to then block it himself. But anyone familiar with the troll he was imitating knows he does make death threats, so it's not surprising that Miszatomic would also copy this (although it shows very poor judgment). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a kind thought with Kalki in mind, I feel badly that his RFA has been disrupted in this fashion. I also went ahead and notified Kalki on his user talk page. It's merely a suggestion. As you say, if Kalki wishes, I've notified him, so he can decide. Up to him and/or other admins/Bureaucrats, I myself won't be restarting the RFA. Deferring to other admins/Bureaucrats and/or Kalki if he so wishes it. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please block User:AeroSoftGum18 ASAP. This is a troll/spammer/vandal. See [6] which lies about "mainly work on enwiki" and which has a link that redirects and pops up offensive material. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment is to not let them have a scorecard, don't even name them. Block them like squashing snails and move on. They are an annoyance; don't let them spoil your day; don't let them get under your skin. sDrewth 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Community response to vandalism is ragged. What was early Wikipedia practice is still being maintained here. It is contrary to the suggestion above. See [9], today, a response to [10]. That warning is completely unnecessary. The user knows the edit is vandalism, knows that it is not constructive, does not need a warning to realize this. When I see IP edits like this on Wikiversity, I do not warn the IP, it simply creates a new page with little purpose. As a user, I simply revert such vandalism with "rvv" and that's that. As an admin, I would not hesitate to short-block a vandalism-only IP as the only response (and confirmation is obvious from Contributions). The block reason would make the matter clear. I won't go into more detail, but it is very possible that response to vandalism here is increasing vandalism, long-term. ("Look at these idiots! Hah! Hah! ROTFL!") I will often look at global contributions. When I see vandalism on more than one wiki, I go to meta for a global block. This is only for blatant vandalism. When something looks like it might possibly be good-faith, or a test edit gone awry, from a registered user, I may warn. Not for a vandalism-only account (or one that might make a decent edit or two as a decoy), but that is new and obviously disruptive. Policy should be developed on this, because ragged and inconsistent response can harm the wiki. --Abd (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to a long term troll like the one currently known as Dragoon (subject of this thread) has indeed exacerbated the problem. I doubt he would have kept returning if he were not rewarded with exactly the feedback he desires. Current and former administrators should have known better than to feed the troll, and may be faulted for doing so. On the other hand, templatized responses to random drive-by graffiti such as the case you cite, while not particularly useful, are not in my opinion so harmful that we need a binding policy prohibiting innocent users (who are not required to study the rules) from telling someone to knock it off – sometimes it even serves the useful purpose of calling an ongoing problem to the attention of administrators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Color me puzzled. My comment here is intended to suggest that discussion and development of a relatively coherent response to vandalism might help matters. That requires some level of consensus. Nobody has mentioned a "binding policy" and "prohibiting." And the user whose warning was cited here is not some noob, he is not only an admin, but a former 'crat, and probably could be called the (current) Founder of Wikiquote. Warning IP for blatant and deliberately offensive vandalism causes harm in more than one way. Practically, speaking, it is done when the vandalism is discovered and reverted. I just use "rvv" in the edit summary. That can be seen just as easily as a warning on a Talk page. Those talk pages generally are obsolete almost immediately, chances are strong that the user doesn't even see them. So they can confuse future users of that IP. As well, they add to Recent Changes traffic. Two edits (the vandalism and the reversion) become three, if there is a warning.

Wikipedia used to more or less require warnings before block. More recent revisions of the policy recognized what has become the reality on many wikis: vandalism-only IP is simply reverted and maybe short-blocked, but no warning. Minimum fuss, as Billinghurst suggested. Vandalism-only accounts, often the same.

If there is vandalism on more than one wiki, vandalism IP is commonly globally blocked. If it is a vandalism-only *account*, again, global locks are used, routinely. Remember, "vandalism-only" means nothing that looks useful or as intended to be useful. These accounts have nothing invested, and the user is probably better off with the account blocked, having to start a new one if they want to edit. Often, on Wikiversity, admins don't bother to even block. Usually it makes no difference.

This does not apply to test edits, or the kinds of edits often made by super-young users (which can look like vandalism). Even a very young user, though, if making an edit like that cited above, knows it's not an acceptable thing. The more notice, then, the more fun for the user. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I've been accused of being Dragonrons sock puppets before on Wikipedia; do I seriously come off as a vandal? CensoredScribe (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot answer for whatever happened at Wikipedia. If you want to appeal your ban from that project, this is not the place to do it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI. I have done some IP checking of spambots and vandals. That resulted in some local blocking for spambots where not xwiki, some global IP blocks where xwiki, skipping dynamic IPs, and for your vandal broader actions (continuation). Noting that spambot accounts and your vandals' accounts are locked on sight. sDrewth 06:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (steward)

I have refrained from protecting the Alexander the Great page, simply because I have been involved in recent disputes about it — which really is not all that much of a rational dispute — where at least one person has been insisting on a modern conspiracy theory that, contrary to the substantial testimony of the history records of the last couple thousand years, and modern archeological finds supporting them, Alexander and the ancient Macedonians were not actually Greeks. Because of continued efforts to promote such nonsense, I believe this page should probably be protected from anon edits, for an extended period — perhaps six months, or more, but will continue to refrain from doing this myself, and await other opinions on the matter. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

An IP editor has requested that this page be unprotected so he may continue editing it:

Why was this page locked? The person who did it gave no reason for it, and it's not like this page was constantly being severely vandalized... I did most of the work here, removing pointless quotes, adding references,... but now I can't anymore, so I'd like to know why.2A02:1812:290C:8900:693E:301C:B419:7077 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [11]

Looking at the page's history, I can only detect 3 vandal edits in 7 years, so there is no "long term abuse".

Although it was a good idea to semi-protect many of the articles touched by the "troll-vandal", I believe this page in particular should be unprotected, so that this IP editor and others can keep working on it. (I have watchlisted it in case vandalism does occur in the future.) Thanks for your attention ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed a series of quotes added by User:74.12.82.11 cited to a "Gregory Alan Elliott"; some indicate no source, and some indicate sources such as "The Graffiti Quarterly" and "The Literary Handout"; however, I can find no evidence of the existence of any quotes by this person in the listed publications. The subject has no Wikipedia article, and is not quoted in any books, so far as I can find. BD2412T 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We have seen this person before at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Orange. He does appear to have some notoriety, not as a quoteworthy street artist but as the first Canadian to face criminal prosecution for internet trolling,[14] about which he has been quoted in print but that is probably not the sort of thing that belongs in a compendium of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it does not. These other additions, even less so. BD2412T 19:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-notable "legit" artists and poets. We house quotes by notable people (or at least quoted by other notable people). There is no Wikipedia article on this subject, which therefore fails one of our key metrics of notability. BD2412T 13:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with basing "noteworthy" exclusively on the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article on the author, because Wikipedia process can be erratic. However, looking at the contributions of this IP, I see material that is obviously inappropriate, as placed. For example, [15], "*Experience is the past tense of experiment.Gregory Alan Elliott, Toronto, Ontario." The quotation is banal, an idea I've heard in many places for over fifty years, and has nothing specifically to do with the page it was placed on. See [16], his Tweet, with a photo of his street art. It has, however, been picked up: [17], that's a book published by Springer. It is possible that a quotation becomes notable, by being covered in reliable sources or in other ways. I would argue that something found widely on the internet is actually notable, if the sources are independent from each other. This is very different from notability for Wikipedia purposes, a person who authored what becomes widespread may not at all be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article.

Many GA Elliot quotations are banal, and this is perhaps deliberate, he is saying the obvious, such as "Honesty is the best poetry." That is, this is obvious to any serious poet! However, it's not quite right. Honesty is not quite enough, it can also take work. The best poetry is not merely honest, it is also expressed in a powerful way, that inspires.

My suggestion, I will place on the IP talk page, is that the person register an account and engage in discussion of how and where to place these quotations, if it's possible. Beyond that, on Wikiversity, Gregory Alan Elliott, or his friends or fans, would be welcome to create educational resources, and I would assist. "Sayings of Gregory Alan Elliott" could be studied there, we do things like that. Where and how is another matter, that would be worked out, we would not necessarily have a mainspace resource on him, this might be a subpage of Philosophy, or how about Street Art? These kinds of things are studied in universities. In fact, Street Art is a cool idea. Thanks, George. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See wikiversity:en:Street art/Gregory Alan Elliott. I recommend that when users here see inappropriate material that might be studied at Wikiversity (which is highly inclusive, if material is organized properly), or that might simply be an opportunity for a user to learn something, maybe about how to edit wikis!, send them to us. In the past, this has reduced disruption, and Wikiversity can gain. This could be fun.... --Abd (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? It appears to me that the selection of both images and captions on Trent Lott are no longer NPOV. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm just going to remove the third image. BD2412T 13:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it, but I agree with its removal. BD2412T 13:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, I also saw the appropriateness of changing that image, and did so. The others were less offensive and more related to the context of the statements quoted; that one went substantially beyond that. Thanks for the notice. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As with the above discussion regarding the Trent Lott page, I feel that the selection of some of the captions for the images is inappropriate and violates NPOV. I also note that these captions were placed by the same user that worked on the Trent Lott page. I had previously changed the captions to be more neutral, but now they are changed back. Anyone care to comment? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't examined the situation thoroughly, but from a few glances at the page and the edit history agree that some of these changes are inappropriate, and have noted so on that talk page, and the other editor's talk page. I have to be leaving soon, so I might not be able to do much more here for perhaps a few hours or more. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The captions have been changed to more neutral ones now. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 20:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am preparing to leave, but I wish to note another problem I have been noticing just today, before I do: When I have clicked on links to pages they have not been updating automatically, and I have not seen the most recent changes until I purged the page. I don't believe I have reset anything in my own prefs, and am wondering if anyone else is observing this. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

While we have no hard and fast rule on when such TV pages should be split into pages for seasons, usually it happens when the parent page becomes so large that it is unwieldy (which is often the case for shows that have 10+ seasons). In this case, I don't know that it was necessary at this point in time, given that there is not currently a ton of quotes for this show. That being said, however, I see nothing wrong with splitting it and would support the anon's work in doing so. Should someone endeavor to populate the page(s) with quotes from each episode, it would surely swell into one that could benefit from being split anyway. In the end, I do not favor a hard and fast rule in either direction. Single pages for a TV show might provide the benefit of ease of use and are preferable to some, but I would not want to preclude a user from creating season pages either. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the latter part of Mdd's original question: yes, the article(s) far exceed Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. The extent to which creating multiple pages for the same program may tend to encourage this is unclear.

I think that an excess of quotes and a superfluity of pages both tend to defeat the purpose of showcasing whatever memorably quoteworthy bits may be buried therein. The reader might as well just get the DVDs and watch the whole thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ningauble's point is of course also quite valid here - as this is a half-hour show, each episode should only have 2 quotes. If the limit were properly applied, perhaps the need for pages for individual seasons would be lessened or even removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:DanielTom and User:Cirt have managed to avoid being at odds for several months now, and both have otherwise contributed productively in that time (although Cirt seems to be taking a break since last month). In any case, I think it's time to lift their interaction ban. I think they have outgrown it. BD2412T 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not so much the case that the interaction ban between these individuals is no longer necessary, as it is the case that it never adequately dealt with the ongoing long term pattern of disruption by one of them, i.e. Cirt's targeting multiple contributors with obsessive attacks and harassment (most recently, before the current break, in a campaign of harassment targeted against myself[18]) and tendentiously employing illogical, counter-factual, and duplicitous arguments ad nauseam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I propose to remove it. I think that Cirt has mellowed; he did support Kalki's last RfA. BD2412T 19:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I support removal of this particular ban, but I also agree with Ningauble regarding the behavior of Cirt - should such patterns resurface, that is where we should probably direct our efforts. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412 (talk · contributions), for noting that I have mellowed, and for pointing out that I did support at Kalki's last RfA. I strive to take your wise advice to heart. BD2412, your kind words are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I also support removal of this particular ban. Mdd (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, the interaction ban is lifted. Of course, no one is required to interact with anyone else, and any interaction that does occur should be civil. To the extent that disagreements arise, please focus on the policy at issue, and not on personalities. Cheers! BD2412T 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been some time since I tried to resurrect this topic, but here goes again: this remains a proposed policy - and it also remains one on which I do not believe we have complete agreement regarding acceptable limits. Can we perhaps re-start some discussion around it? Although not truly official, it is often cited in disputes regarding the number of quotes on a page (for example see here). I for one believe that some of the limits espoused on the page are a bit stringent and would like to discuss relaxing some of these proposed limits. In the end, it would be nice if we could finally arrive at something the community can agree upon and make something official. Any thoughts? ~ UDScott (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with both points above. BD2412T 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It partly depends on copyright. Obviously, if a work is in copyright and we quote more than is reasonable fair use, that is wrong. But if a work is out of copyright and full of good quotations, say a Shakespeare play, then we should be liberal.--Abramsky (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Our limitations for works in copyright are still much tighter than they need to be to meet reasonable fair use. BD2412T 15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)